Saving Private Ryan is NOT an Anti-War Film
Vložit
- čas přidán 15. 06. 2024
- On its surface, Saving Private Ryan is one of the most intense and unglamorous portrayals of war in history. But underneath this, Saving Private Ryan actually supports war, showing the soldiers as heroic and brave, fighting to make the world a better place. And no matter how horribly war is depicted, when you depict the soldiers fighting it as heroic (as the allies in WWII definitely were), you are not making an anti-war statement.
Movies Under The Surface is a series of video essays that explores what makes great films great. The videos are about understanding movies at a deeper level, beneath plot and story, at their heart.
Support us on Patreon:
/ moviesunderthesurface
Footage from:
Saving Private Ryan (1998), Dir. Steven Spielberg
Battleship Potemkin (1925), Dir. Sergei Eisenstein
Triumph of the Will (1935), Dir. Leni Rienfenstahl
Nation's Pride (2009), Dir. Eli Roth - Part of
Inglorious Basterds (2009), Dir. Quentin Tarantino
Top Gun (1986), Dir. Tony Scott
Fury (2014), Dir. David Ayer
Call of Duty WWII TV Spot (2018), Cre. Activision
Lone Survivor (2013), Dir. Peter Berg
The Patriot (2000), Dir. Roland Emmerich
Glory (1989), Dir. Edward Zwick
The Pianist (2002), Dir. Roman Polanski
Schindler's List (1993), Dir. Steven Spielberg
That Justice Be Done (1945), Dir. George Stevens
Paths of Glory (1957), Dir. Stanley Kubrick
The Hurt Locker (2008), Dir. Kathryn Bigelow
Das Boot (1981), Dir. Wolfgang Peterson
Apocalypse Now (1979), Dir. Francis Ford Coppola
Catch 22 (1970), Dir. Mike Nichols
The Pacific Part Nine (2010), Dir. Tim Van Patten
Nazi Concentration and Prison Camps (1945), Dir. George Stevens
Music from:
Saving Private Ryan Soundtrack - John Williams
For educational purposes only.
NOTE: In this video, I say that Lone Survivor is set in Iraq when it is actually set in Afghanistan. This is a mistake and I'm not sure how I made it (I remember re-wording my Hurt Locker video specifically to account for this, but somehow missed it here), but thank you to the commenters who pointed it out.
@@nickright7747 This story is told from an American soldier's POV. In light of this, it makes sense that the Germans are depicted this way.
If you'd like to see the Germans depicted the way you describe, watch Band of Brothers Ep 10. They have a scene that is exactly what you say, and it is one of the most powerful scenes in the miniseries.
WWII wasn't fought to stop the Holocaust or any other evil acts committed by the Nazis, but it did stop the holocaust and other evil acts committed by the Nazis. The allied victory literally stopped them, even if that wasn't their primary objective, even if it wasn't an objective at all, they still did it.
If not for boneheaded decisions made by the allies following WWI the world could've avoided WWII. Sure. We can play the "what if" game all day. The fact of the matter is the allies did make bonehead decisions following WWI, and if you think what resulted from that (Nazis, fascism, genocide, etc) could've been solved without the barrel of a gun, well, I don't know what to tell you other than I think you are wrong.
@@nickright7747 SPR isn't told from America's perspective. It is told from a specific American soldier's (Ryan's) perspective. That's a big difference that you seem to be not seeing.
SPR is not a documentary. It is not meant to teach history. It is meant to give the audience the feeling of what it was like to be an American soldier fighting in Normandy in WWII. Anything not related to this (the US's motivations for fighting, how the war could've been avoided, ramifications the war had on Europe and American foreign policy) are beyond the scope of this movie.
That being said, you might like my Hurt Locker video. The stuff you are talking about is the scope of that movie, and so I get into it there.
czcams.com/video/YyIhqpKUBW8/video.html
@@nickright7747 that is a fair point. It's honestly hard to know if the film is accurate or not in reference to what you are describing, I'd actually say it's impossible to know it if you haven't gone through it yourself. That being said, I've heard many veterans say SPR is the most accurate depiction of war they've ever seen.
To be fair most people unconnected with the recent wars tend to group them together.
Ramifications. American foreigb policy etc are exactly what this film is about.
Its a masterclass from spielberg but its very very subtle. Its mainly abouth how the holocaust happened so i dont think spielberg cared about showing germans soldiers suffering.
Still can't believe 'Shakespeare in Love' won the Oscar over this.
Harvey Weinstein (producer of SIL) was the king of the Oscars, almost every time there was a big upset, it was because of him. But I agree, SPR should have won, definitely.
@@MoviesUnderTheSurface but watching Harvey take a shower is so hot.
To beat saving private Ryan I'm assuming that must have been one hell of a film.
imo SPR was not that good of a movie besides the opening scene. the story is bland after the opening and you don't really feel connected with any of the characters.
@@my2l I'm afraid I'm going to have to agree to disagree there.
"There's some good in this world, Mr. Frodo. And it's worth fighting for."
great quote
@Movies Under The Surface if I'm not mistaken it was added by Philippa Boyens and/or Fran Walsh and did not originate from Tolkien books. It certainly is in the spirit of the books though.
Thanks for the reply by the way.
" 'The world is a good place and it's worth fighting for.' I agree with the second part."
Notice that in The Lord of the Rings, human beings did not kill each other in wars. The common enemy is a plague to their way of life. It was not other human beings that were the enemy. Keep note of that. Saving Private Ryan is an immoral film.
@@doncorleole2356 lol I understood that reference
I really don't think you understand this film, because you glossed over a substantial part of the film with a "the film tells us that it's important": The scene with General Marshall. The mission is very personal to Marshall in particular, that's why he's depicted as having memorized Lincoln's letter. One of the other officers disagrees and openly speaks out against Marshall's plan. In response Marshall reads Lincoln's letter. It's literally showing you that Marshall's goal, the reunion of a last surviving son and his mother, is a personal mission. His acting in defiance of the rational objection underscores that he feels the lives of Captain Miller and his men are less important than his PR mission. Every single one of those men died out of a General's pride and for propaganda, a point you yourself bring up as being an anti-war message.
Further more, every single character actually INVOLVED in saving Ryan directly state, in multiple separate scenes, that Ryan does not matter. Ryan is irrelevant. Ryan, his mother, and his worthless life are directly stated to be wholly irrelevant to every single character involved, and only one, Reiben, has any feelings about Ryan at all. And those feelings are wholly negative until he's ordered to fight alongside Ryan. At which point he respects Ryan as a fellow sacrifice upon the altar of War. All of Miller's men, the ones who actually fight in the war, exclusively do this mission for the chance to STOP fighting war and to GO HOME. The sole character who doesn't have this position is Upham.
And speaking of Upham: You posit that Upham saying that the war is important for character is a good thing. Except Upham is mocked for very good reason. Upham is trashed for very good reason. Upham is not presented as a morally righteous or correct character, and is presented as a coward. Everything he says then must be viewed through that lens. Upham presenting the idea that war is important for character is the cowardly presenting the idea that war is important. It's the position of those who did not believe they would fight it. Upham represents the bureaucrats who run the war machine, as he's a typist and writer not a soldier.
Spielberg is telling us through these scenes: Those who actually sacrifice to go to war are worth respect. Those who push for war, who want war, and sacrifice men in war are not worth respect. He is presenting that War itself is bad. War should be avoided. But you should respect those who have been sacrificed upon the altar of War, for but by the grace of God go you.
Saving Private Ryan IS an anti-war movie at its bones. It's about nine men who throw their lives away for one man because of a superior officer's PR stunt. You have to look at WHY things occur in the film, and not simply how they occur, in order to see it for the anti-war film it is.
And, in closing, Saving Private Ryan is not about stopping nazis. The nazis literally don't matter, and only one character--Mellish--even engages with the nazi iconography or history. You could easily replace the nazis with Russians, Martians, or Americans and set the film in Ukraine, Mars, or the Civil War and it'd play out exactly the same. Nazis and the war as a whole neither support nor undermine the film's stance on War. They only serve as easy shorthand so that Spielberg doesn't need to explain "Yes, these people are bad and you shouldn't feel bad when they die." The film is about pointless sacrifice, and how war causes it.
I never said the film was about stopping Nazis, I said the war was about stopping Nazis. Spielberg could've set the film in any of the other settings you described, but he didn't. He set it on the Western front of the European theater of WWII and that context imo should not be ignored.
As to your other claims, I think you have a lot of seeing what you want to see going on. That doesn't make it bad or even wrong, but that doesn't mean it is definitely what the film is doing. For example, where is your evidence that Marshall's motivation was PR? Unless I'm forgetting something, there's literally no evidence of this in the film, and there are several other times in your comment where you make claims that based solely on what is in the film easily could be something else
I enjoyed reading your thoughts on the film, definitely different than mine and while I can see where you are coming from, I personally think a film doing the things you describe would have to make some small but significant changes so that these ideas can be more objective, right now they seem subjective to your specific point of view. Perhaps you should make your own video on it?
I do agree on some of what you said, but this film in an hidden indirect way promotes wars crimes. A person would concluded after watching this film is that international law is protecting the bad guy and hence is holding you back from doing justice. Also people like Upham who reminds people of the Geneva convection is depicted as coward wimp who doesn't want to fight and in the end the one bullet he fires in the movie when he actually shoot a POW.
I guess war is hell, but there are reasons to go to hell.
thats a very good way to put it
things are never black and white, good vs evil
See: Dante’s Inferno
Man, Tom Sizemore was good. Too bad he's such a bad guy in real life.
Wtf I just realized how under viewed, this guys videos are....
Thanks. Hopefully the rest of my videos will break out soon
There's a difference between simply showing how terrible the war was, and showing how much these brave soldiers are willing to sacrifice for others.
A really good anti war movie is all quiet on the western front, it shows the horrors of war and how there’s never really a point in fighting in a war except killing, or being killed. People get killed randomly in war, you don’t know who will die, all you know is that there’s a possibility that you won’t go home, the horrors of war can never be described in films or words, and yet it seems that we always face a conflict
I love movies and lately ive been fascinated with film making. Your reviews are awesome! I hope you continue to make more videos and share your insights about these great movies.
thanks! I appreciate you comments and am glad you enjoy my videos!
What about Spielberg in multiple interviews during the time stating that it was an anti-war film and that he would like it to be viewed that way? He also praised Platoon for being blatantly anti-war. He said that he wanted to take the sanitization out of it and also that he was certain John Wayne would not have liked the movie. He also called the war as "certainly not a noble war," but not that is was unnecessary.
yeah, I don't agree with Spielberg on this one. He may have tried to make an anti-war film, but I personally don't think he made one. It wouldn't be the first time a filmmaker made an excellent film even though they didn't make the film they intended to make
I heard a Navy SEAL say the most realistic scene in a war movie was the normandy beach scene. It portrays the utter chaos a soldier can be in.
I've heard several veterans say that.
I've heard a veteran with PTSD say that about about the beach scene. He said it was so realistic he couldn't watch it without experiencing a flash back. He also said the rest of the film is entirely unrealistic. @@MoviesUnderTheSurface
this video really needs more attention
thanks. it was blocked everywhere but the US and Canada but I'm fighting it, so hopefully more people can see it when that is lifted
I watched this movie when i was a kid, my parents didnt really care about age restriction and war and blood and stuff like that back then. Didnt think much of it, but then i found this video when i was searching for reviews on 500 days of summer on quora... and damn this really make my earlier cool-kid-wannabe saying "I've watched that old classic movie Saving Private Ryan, it's soooo overrated" sounds stupid as hell you know :))) But this really bothers me. So basically, while i was watching your vid on 500 days of summer, in the related video section on youtube, there was all kinds of videos related to movies meaning and stuff like that, but NONE of them is from your channel. I actually had to click on your channel to find your other videos (I've watch almost all of it btw, some of it is blocked in my country Vietnam). My point is, what the hell is youtube even doing? It's like they dont like you for some nonsense copyrights reasons and stop promoting you videos because of it. That is so unfair... I really hope you get your videos lifted off these stupid law. Keep up the good work!!! And lastly, this is a bit personal so my apologies, but out of curiosity may i ask what do you do for a living? Are you like a film critic or just a movie enthusiast? You dont have to answer me on this tks
thanks for the kind words. I'm a filmmaker: www.gabrielbruskoff.com/ www.imdb.com/name/nm3958873/. I hope more of my videos get out there like the 500 Days of Summer One has, it is frustrating, that's for sure.
BTW, my wife and I spent a month in Vietnam last year. We loved it!
where/how can one watch your movies?
follow my links above. And stay tuned, because there is more to come!
Wouldn’t Upham be one of the better examples of how this movie is pro-war? He himself discusses how war supposedly awakens the senses. And we see him transition from a frantic, cloud-minded coward who chooses to forgive the evil that is the nazis into a concise, purposeful man understanding of the consequences of letting such hatred survive- thus killing the very nazi he defended. And while we could say that upham represents the movie simply being pro-soldier, it was the context of the battles that awoke him - that is: the war is responsible for turning him into a man capable of fighting evil, and he permanently bears the resultant, positive characteristics. I think Upham’s character demonstrates very clearly how this movie celebrates what is noble in a soldier and a soldier’s choice to kill another human being. It’s not an easy decision. But in the face of such evil, it is the right decision - and that’s why we celebrate these men with such a pro-war film.
I mention his speech about the positives of war in my video. Regarding his relationship with the German soldier, that storyline really can be interpreted as pro or anti-war, pro for what you said, but also anti-war for showing that during times of war, morality gets destroyed and doing the right thing isn't always the right thing to do.
I once heard a man telling that Upham represents the inocence of most civilians. He isn't a soldier ready to kill on command at the start of the movie, he works in a desk like most of us, he isn't used to this insanity.
The movie shows that the only one in the squad that likes him is Captain Miller, maybe Upham's talents remind him of his former job as a school teacher, a vocation that is indispensable in peace time, but useless in war by the very violent nature of it.
It is him being broken by the consecuences of his inaction that compels him to fire the rifle at the end of the film. He only becomes a soldier once he kills a man... and that is the tragedy of Upham and of war in general.
No big deal Ty (and I appreciate your comments) but the Uphan character portrayed seems to me more of a person frozen in fear, not wanting nor trained (enough) to be a combat soldier, but willing to "right" a wrong (the shooting of the German soldier, who showed his arrogance--and enjoying killing the enemy). To me a coward is a person who is limited, but feels like he is a god (or whatever and unwilling to accept the consequences of his actions -- I'm being a bit philosophical, maybe too much). All of your other commentaries are very good, you are a good descriptive writer. Thanks. I do feel, like this film reviewer, that the US and European cause was just. My dad could have lost his life to a bed-check Charlie (he was a medic), and I would not have had the good life that I have had. The US tried to force me into joining into it during the Vietman war -- and I did more than say "no", 'cuz it was not a just action, and known of to not be that sort of good cause by the time of my maturity (late '60's-70 I'm now 72). And I had three years of h.s. ROTC. I have had people tell me that I was a good man, and that I had a good life (I was briefly a weekly news guy, partially because is was angry about what Tricky Dick Nixon and the $$$ people did, to three of my school kids). Go CZcams!
Upham freezes in fear when one of his own squadmates is being slowly, brutally killed and then shoots an unarmed man in cold blooded revenge. There's nothing noble about that. In a different film Upham would be the coward who flakes on his squad and is ultimately given some kind of karmic death for his failures but SPR tries to elevate him to hero status despite the fact that he has done nothing at all to earn it.
@@silversnail1413 This exactly. His character shows not only how the movie is pro-war, but is also pro-naiveté, pro-simplicity and pro-black-and-white-thinking. His character starts out as an intellectual and somebody antagonized for his nuanced approach to the war, and ends up lionized for having become a simple-minded man.
5:00 Jesse we need to save Private Ryan
Gabriel, I know every second of that great film. You still enlightened me. Thank you and kudos to you. Keep going.
thanks for your comment! I appreciate it a lot!
LOL!
In the end they fight for each other and survival and for no other reason despite whatever ideological drive we might try to lay upon them.
I think you should add the title of the movies you show clips of, like screenprism does. Not everyone knows every single scene or movie by heart
your right, for this video, I should have. I always list them at the end, but because there are so many clips in this one, it wouldve been better to mention them in the video. Unfortunately, it never crossed my mind when making it. Thanks for the suggestion though.
As Francois Truffaut said, “There’s no such thing as an anti-war film.” What he means is, movies inevitably are visually spectacular and exciting. Hell, in Paths of Glory, the trench sequence is really kick ass. Apocalypse Now? The helicopters on the beach set to the Ride of Valkyries is thrilling. Even Jarhead and The Thin Red Line are shot with spectacularly beautiful cinematography.
Basically any movie that tries to be anti-war is fighting against the visceral nature of the medium.
Yes, I know that quote. There is truth to it, but also falseness to it as well. Movies can be anti-war with their deeper level meanings, even if their visuals are exciting. How exciting the visuals are and what the visuals mean are two different things. At least they are to a viewer who can see the difference.
"At least they are to a viewer who can see the difference."
Was it really necessary to be condescending?
You can evoke "deeper meanings" all you want to excuse war being exciting, but the very nature of the medium cannot help but argue against the "deeper meaning" that is trying to be made. And that is Truffaut's point.
The same is true of Wolf of Wall Street, Scarface, the Godfather, Goodfellas or any other movie that spends two plus hours making crime look really really cool, only to go all Haye's code at the end and say "don't do this really cool thing we spent the whole movie making look sexy and cool 'cause it's bad, mkay."
It's a way for the artist to have his cake and eat it too. No responsible filmmaker can admit to making a film that glorifies war. But they relish making these bravura technically difficult, visceral sequences BECAUSE they are exciting. The very visual nature of the subject matter makes it impossible to NOT glorify it. A great filmmaker, like Spielberg, like Kubrick, like Scorsese, they know and understand that, and live in the tension created by the hypocrisy of showing one thing and telling the audience another.
I didn't mean it as condescending at all. I am simply stating that Truffaut's statement is both true and false. It is true for people who don't differentiate visuals from their meanings, and it is false for people who do. I might not have worded it the best, but that was what I meant by that statement.
Also, you state that "any movie that tries to be anti-war is fighting against the visceral nature of the medium." I completely agree with this. But I do think it is possible for the filmmaker to win that fight.
Ah okay. But you do see how that could be construed to be condescending, right?
Anyway, I am of the opinion that if a filmmaker is TRULY and honestly wanting to make an anti-war movie, its probably best to NOT show any battle sequences but focus on the toll that it takes. The result would be a movie like Grave of the Fireflies.
For Spielberg and Kubrick to evoke the idea that their movies are anti-war I feel is dishonest. That may sound like a value judgement, but I don't mean it as such. They are either being dishonest to the press while marketing the movie, or are just being dishonest with themselves. I don't see that as a bad thing, or a good thing. Its just a natural human thing. We are all the sum total of our contradictions.
But if they were being honest, the scenes that they shot that they dedicated the bulk of their intention, the full force of their technical expertise and artistry, was not the scenes arguing against war, but depicting the visceral, the spectacular and intense scenes. Those are the scenes that require the sum total of their expertise, that end up being featured in trailers and the clips that people return to time and time again. Those are the scenes that indelibly burn into the memories of the audience.
So in my estimation, the best possible way for a filmmaker to win that fight would be to not show the fight at all.
Yeah, once you called the sentence out, I can see how it comes off as condescending, even if it wasn't my intention.
Have you seen Come and See or Kanal? A Lot of times I think foreign films do a better job dealing with the war-is-inherently-exciting-in-film dynamic than American films do. But I do think some American films succeed as well.
9:26 I totally forgot Gronk was in this.
what's Gronk? the timestamp you put shows Nathan Fillon
Movies Under The Surface Oh I was just kidding. He looks like Rob Gronkowski.
Sometimes it seems to me that the 'tag' 'Anti-War' is just put on the end of a film to be trendy or for convenience etc?
Some people think good war films have to be anti-war. I personally dont think that is true.
Both my grandfathers served in WW2, one flew transports in the Royal Canadian Air Force and the other drove a tank in the British Columbia Dragoons. My great uncle was a bomber pilot who was shot down and killed in Feb ‘45 and is buried in Holland. I saw this movie in theatres when I was a teenager in the 90s, and it made a huge impression. I was 18 when 9/11 happened, and I thought of my grandfathers, my great uncle, and this film, and decided to join the Canadian army. I served as an infanteer for 13 years and did a tour to Afghanistan, and my family has a tradition of watching this movie on Remembrance Day, as my wife’s grandfather landed at Juno Beach with the Canadian army. My opinion is that it is effective propaganda for all the reasons you point out, especially when you watch Schindler’s List right before it. The characters may be stock tropes in many ways, but the fact is that common people from many walks of life did come together to form the infantry sections and tank crews and airplane crews that risked their lives in order to defeat fascism in Europe, so I forgive it.
Correction: German-phobe, anti-german war film
I didn’t agree at first but towards the end you really swayed me. Great video👍
thanks so much! glad you enjoyed it
Ive always disliked the hate Upham gets. He wasn't a frontline soldier he was a cartographer. He had never killed anyone before so I don't blame him for freezing during the battle.
I think most people understand rather than hate him
i think the majority of people who judge him would be no more valiant than he was
I’m sorry to say this Gabe but I have to disagree , your statement of ‘’ at the end of the day saving private Ryan is about killing nazis’’ is simply not true in my opinion this is because of the scene around 20 minutes in that shows 2 Americans pointing guns at people who have there hands in the air . This is a great way of showing how ww2 was not black and white but a dark grey ( fun fact when translated the 2 men are actually saying that they aren’t German and are where forcefully drafted )
If you see this I want you to know that I don’t hate this video I just don’t agree that’s all :)
I’d also like to add I agree with a few points that you made
at the end of the day saving private ryan is about defeating nazis. that's what I say.
So i have to present a job about if i agree or disagree with the teacher's hypothesis:
In Paths of Glory and Cross of Iron there are no HEROES. Meanwhile in 1917 and Saving Private Ryan, there are.
What you guys think?
(sorry for my poor english)
Im not familiar with Cross of Iron but for the other three, I agree
WOAH. THIS REVIEW WAS AMAZING
thanks!
I lost family to world war 2 I believe this movie helps show and depicts what these men had to go through
What's bad about the movie is that it basically dehumanizes German soldiers.
why would I want to feel empathy for soldiers that did war crimes every day? thats like if I made a movie that portrays Jeffery Dahmer as a misunderstood genius
@@tarzantabi7845 This is the Heer AKA German Army on the Western Front. And news flash kid, the Soviets on the Eastern Front were just as bad as the Germans.
They even made the German soldiers look historically inaccurate in the movie just to dehumanize them more. LOL.
@@tarzantabi7845 We aren't talking about the Waffen SS or the Eastern Front dude, but the Heer AKA German Army on the Western Front. YT keeps hiding my replies, so I hope this gets through.
@@tarzantabi7845 CZcams keeps hiding my replies, so I'm just going to say you're wrong and your comparison is a strawman.
They are no I'raquies!
The "helpers" in Lone Survivor were Pashtuns! (....I think!)
Horvath, not Horowitz 7:50
oops! not sure how I made that mistake and never noticed it, thanks for pointing that out
I know this video is a year old but a good video for those who don't understand the whole point of the mission go watch history buffs video on the movie
I've never once heard anyone say that SPR was an anti-war film. I've always seen it as a tribute to the men who fought that war and how Spielberg wanted it to be as realistic and as accurate as possible. War is never good, but at the same time there is such a thing as a good war, meaning that war can certainly be justified and worth fighting. History is complicated and there's always more than one side to a story, but WW2 was definitely a war worth fighting.
Spielberg himself has called it an anti-war film. so have many others, for example: czcams.com/video/3ChlJ1pdWlQ/video.html
This conversation is entirely pointless because everyone here including the person that made this video confuses the act of WAR with the act of FIGHTING.
Fighting back against vile acts or in self defense against a person or invaders is always good and justifiable. It can be justified to fight, wound and kill for the purpose of a good cause. People should be fighting against Russia, people should be fighting against terrorism. However, war itself is not the only way that can be done, because war isn't just fighting. War is a hopeless slaughter motivated by political and economical factors where the main goal is death. Where men are encouraged to lose their morality and personality and become killers that do not care about contexts. The goal of a soldier in war isn't whatever the goal of the country they are fighting for is. It's to kill every single enemy and do it so without conditions. In a more civlized world, in a less severe and extreme context than WW2, a proper fight with a proper goal would be fought only by true real soldiers, that understand their goals, that are trained and motivated for them, and that understand that the enemy is just the enemy, not the devil. In a noble fight, men like Upham and the german soldier he converses with wouldn't be forced to fight, because they are not enemies. That german soldier isn't a nazi, and Upham is not a trained person that knows combat. They are both people dragged into a slaughterhouse because countries do not care about their lives, just their expediency. The moment when Upham shoots that guy is extremely tragic and should disgust everyone that actually cares about these topics, because it shows how through the horror of war, Upham lost all morality as a person and decided to blindly kill whatever was in front of him.
Saving Private Ryan understands this. It's why the scene with the 2 czech soldiers being gunned down is there. It's what drives most of the internal conflict in Miller's team. Fighting and combat can definetly be a good way to deal with a conflict. However not every fight has to be a war, and in that sense, war itself, as in the death toll of tragic number of civilians being forced to fight and lose their humanity, is never needed. Like I said before, WW2 was a very, very extreme context and in that way, the death toll and nature of that war I feel was unavoidable. But WW1? Not needed. Vietnam? Not needed. And let's not forget that every single Allied country used the context of the war to then take over the world in their petty politics, and some countries have been damaged beyond repair by their greed and ego.
Saving Private Ryan does show heroes in war, but that doesn't mean that war should be in any way deemed glorified or at the end a good thing. WW2 didn't fix anything. It just stopped the nazi regime while kickstarting 40 other worse regimes.
i understand what you say in how the allies where right in fighting the war and have nothing to be ashamed of.
However the movie is not entirely accurate and aims at dehumanizing as well as demonizing the German fighters, who are almost never seen suffering like the American soldiers did when inflicted the same wounds, we hardly ever see German faces and when we do they are all shaven and and extremely rugged, completely ignoring the thousands of extremely young soldiers that would have been forced into the army.
The movie even goes as far as to glorify killing POWS which is an atrocity that the Americans are supposedly fighting against.
Im not saying that America should never have fought the NAZIES im actually extremely glad that they one, but what i am very much against is when the enemy's are completely dehumanized when in reality very much of low ranking soldiers did not even want to fight in the first place and only the higherups believing in the cause.
the movie is so set on saving a soldier in order to save his mother but forgets that every single German has a mother of their own, and completely ignores their suffering, throwing them all under the bus of, Evil Nazis that all deserve to die.
In conclusion, the war was necessary, and i cant see us today enjoying the peace and freedom that we do without it. However, war like many thing is NOT black and white, Not all of the Germans where Evil, and Not all the Americans where Good, and any movie that tells you otherwise is lying.
I agree with what you wrote, but I do not think this is an example of poor filmmaking in SPR. SPR is told from the American soldiers' perspective, specifically Ryan's perspective. It makes sense that he would see the German soldiers the way they are presented in the film, even if that isn't what an objective view would show.
Also, I don't think the film glorifies killing POWs, not at all. I would say the opposite actually
FYI: Band of Brothers has a great scene which depicts the dynamic you're talking about regarding the German soldiers. Band of Brothers is also shown from the US soldiers' POV, but it is 10 hours long, meaning it had more time to include things like what you are discussing.
@@MoviesUnderTheSurface That's understandable, have a great day😂
No but for real that's a pretty good point of vew not gon lie
Great review.
But i do think the voice can be more dominating
thanks! thanks for the feedback as well
To be fair, i see a potential for more honesty
You're so underrated.
thanks!
Have you done a video The Green Berets? I found it graphic (for the time) for a film supposedly being pro-war in Vietnam. Latter I learned that John Wayne made it so people could see what Americans soldiers were going through and be respectful of the common warrior when protesting the war.
I actually havent seen that movie. I've heard its not very good
Well done, son. Well done.
thank you for saying this.
thanks for watching it!
Either Anti or Pro-War, this movie is a masterpiece!
true
Jesus, you are god damn amazing
thanks!
A great analysis, thank you!
thanks you for your comment!
9:38 I disagree with the narration. This "moment" doesn't show anything cowardly. It was showing that soldiers were fighting in extremely unsanitary conditions and I am sure they had lots of foot issues.
Im referring to the incompetence of accidentally knocking a wall down knowing they're engaged in door to door combat with Germans everywhere. I'm not referring to anything cowardly here, just non-heroic. Non-heroic doesn't necessarily mean cowardly.
lol Lone Survivor was in Afghanistan not Iraq but good video anyway lol
yeah, someone else pointed that out to me. definitely messed that up, super-frustrating because I specifically worded a section of my Hurt Locker video to acknowledge this, but somehow missed it here
@@MoviesUnderTheSurface Hey man we all make mistakes I wasnt trying to be a douche or anything. I appreciate your rational and logical philosophical/psychological understanding of this amazing movie. As a combat veteran I find that most people can't or won't put aside their emotions/beliefs/ideology to try and understand things. It was a great and a very none pedantic video on a movie with many layers... Thanks for the good work... You got a new subscriber here... lol
@@ccdunca thanks so much! I wasn't upset at your comment at all, more I'm upset at myself for making that mistake in the first place. glad you liked my video though. hope you enjoy my other ones as well!
you forgot "maybe saving private Ryan is the only good thing to come from this godawful shitty mess" @5:45
how about rambo. is that movie anti war?
I dont remember. I saw it once, a long time ago. I think it wasn't anti-war, but I don't remember for sure.
I don’t think Rambo was an anti war film. I think Stallone wanted to show what’s going on over in Burma. I see some similarities in SPR and Rambo with Spielberg and Stallone not really holding anything back showing how intense war can be. I always liked Rambo and thought it was the best of the whole series. Definitely an underrated film.
Truth!
How does Fury glamorize war?
It has an undercurrent implying that fighting in war is something that makes one a man. The film also seems to enjoy some of the "action" aspects of war.
@@MoviesUnderTheSurface fair enough. Thankyou!
@@MoviesUnderTheSurface Fury was complete crap and so unrealistic!
Nobody is pro-war. There are those who think war is necessary, and those who think it is too costly / unnecessary. But nobody is pro war.
I never say SPR is pro-war for this very reason. Although I would argue that many war-profiteers are pro-war, but that has nothing to do with SPR or my video.
Never perceived this movie as anti-war tbh. Always seemed like pretty pro-war to me.
lots of people think it is anti-war. Spielberg himself has said it is anti-war
Were we the baddies?
I think this video is half true. My reading was that although the allies were totally on the right side. This all should never have happened on the first place from the inception of the Nazis to the bombs falling on Japan. And in the film any ‘human’ act is punished with death mostly and it is shown that to win in a battle you can’t be human. I believe this film was about men struggling to find there humanity in a horrible situation. WWII was a point in time where war was the only option so of course we had to fight it. But I don’t think the film supports the fact that the world got to this place and that the war was a good thing that happened. I think it sees it as a plight on our species as a whole.
Come and see is the only real anti war film I think i have ever seen.
I originally had that film as an example in my video, but the clip was too obscure, it was confusing, so I replaced it with The Pacific
I'll try to watch this video another time, cause when you take the first and last shoots of it out of ur analysys, u surpress a major element of its meaning. Think with me for a moment, if u make chocolate cake without milk ure not making a cake of chocolate, ure not even making a cake. Did u follow my thinking?
I agree with you, normally. First and last shots are two of the most important shots in film, if not the most important. Comparing these shots is a great analysis tool, often one of the most powerful when watching a film.
That being said, I don't think this is true for SPR. I think the first and last shots of this film are tacked on, as they have nothing to do with the plot, story, character arcs, etc. Because of this, I don't think they have the weight and meaning that most first and last shots do.
I think you can spend a lot of time focusing on the beginning sequence and seeing how effective it is as a propaganda film. You mention the two soldiers who appear for thirty seconds and execute the surrendering Germans. Immediately after the execution, the film cuts to Tom Hanks looking unhappy. We do get value based judgement in that moment. What those soldiers did was wrong, and Tom, America's dad, looks perturbed. We as an audience read that and we think the same as Tom, that was bad, but in the greater picture it's fine, thems is evil Nazis and an execution is wrong, but it's understandable, maybe permissible, but those US soldier won't be punished for that execution. This is righteous judgement. Echoed by our favourite sniper who recites a prayer as an avenging angel of death each time he personally kills a Nazi. God is on our side. And he hates Nazis.
interesting additional info: those two German soldiers actually aren't German. They are Czech and were forced to fight by the Germans.
savingprivateryan.fandom.com/wiki/Czech_Wehrmacht_Soldier
Great analysis!
hey man, not trying to be overly critical but lone survivor is set in afghanistan, not iraq
Oh, shoot! I messed that one up. I knew that and specifically altered my Hurt Locker video to acknowledge it, but somehow missed it here.
Very good points but I cant believe you didn't include "COME AND SEE". its the sole greatest war film ever made, and pure anathaema to the dumb "there are no anti war films!" argument.. Spielberg even screened it before making SPR..
Definitely one of the best anti war films ever made. I can't remember why I didn't include it
"gives an honest depiction of war from the side who was right for fighting it... "
This is absolutely propaganda because ww2 was almost entirely fought for power or survival. This "good vs evil" dynamic was a tiny part of the war.
American soldiers mainly fought japan. They fought brutally and committed all those war crimes because japanese leaders wanted more land/power/oil and americans doing it because the japanese hit them first.
America didn't enter the war after nazis took over a huge chunk of europe, they didn't enter the war after nazis were revealed to be committing mass executions of civilians, they didn't enter the war while japan raped and tortured the people of china, they turned away boats full of refugees knowing they'd all be killed by nazis when they returned to europe; and the average american wouldn't eat in the same section of a restaurant as certain other racial groups. The americans entered the war because japan hit them first (pearl harbor). If it was to combat fascism in any way, they would have entered 2 years and tens of millions of lives earlier.
The main enemy of the nazis were the russians, more russians died in one battle (stalingrad) fighting nazis than all US casualties in the entire war... there are reports of russians liberating concentration camps and raping the survivors. The russians soldiers fought germany for survival not for some ideals.
on a side note, Every single main character experiences exclusively positive character growth from their experiences in the war... Murder rates skyrocket for decades after wars for a variety of reasons relating to soldiers.
The message is war is bad unless you are on the side of the good guys, but both sides are ALWAYS the good guys. It's a pro-war movie.
It's Horvath not Horowitz
yeah, someone else already informed me of that. my bad.
Are you implying that that bomb defusal movie is anti war? because it realy isnt, it glorifies the lone american psycho.
I complete disagree the Hurt Locker glorifies "the lone american psycho", and I made a video on my thoughts regarding the film here: czcams.com/video/YyIhqpKUBW8/video.html
Golly.
Oh for fucks sake! Stop trying to have it both ways. Any film that glorifies any war on any level is immoral
why? sometimes war is necessary to eliminate evil. the Nazi's and the Japanese empire were committing tons of atrocities and war crimes every day, killing thousands. they needed to be stopped, and war was the only way they could have been.
thats the way things are, the wold isn't sunshines and rainbows
The Allies and Soviets committed plenty of war crimes. That doesn't mean fighting Germany and the Empire of Japan was in any way unjustified.
everyone is entitled to thier opinion
this is true, but I'm not sure why you are mentioning it here
War is cringe
You've dissected the elements but have failed to see the compound they created.
care to explain?
"Saving Private Ryan" is so horribly overrated. I think because it's American, so the Americans praise it.
whats overrated about it?
I'm an American and I'll tell you Saving Private Ryan is absolute garbage.
You really no nothing about war. Nor why men fight them. Nor, do you know anything why soliders kill. It's a good movie, but it's not war. There is no movie that can show war. Except in the minds of men who fought one and see it for the rest of their lives.
I agree. Is there a place in this video where I claim otherwise?
Propaganda shit....
Who ever thought this was an anti-war movie?
lots of people, there are videos of it on CZcams. Search for it and you will see.
Spielberg himself has also said that it is an anti-war film
That's really disappointing. I mean, you're right, it certainly doesn't glorify it. It does set it up as if it's a necessary evil. Have you seen True Detective season 1?
Yes, and I thought it was great. Not sure how it relates to SPR though?
I'm referring to the scene where Marty asks Rust if he's a bad man. Rust then responds with, "The world needs bad men. We keep the other bad men from the door." I think that philosophy resonates heavily throughout this movie.
Even if that "door" is American soil.
Interesting analysis, but I would argue that you misunderstand the main crux of this movie - the mission they are sent on (to save private ryan) is ultimately pointless and actually hinders the war effort. Saving an individual solider due to some "save the last of a family name" bullshit is exactly the type of ridiculous bureaucracy that you pointed out as a appropriate foil
The sequence explaining the mission tells us not that the mission is justified, but rather that it is all an attempt to save the egos and imagined honor of the chain of command. I consider this potentially the best anti-war war movie ever because at the end the heroes have accomplished nothing and have not pushed the effort against ultimate evil forward an inch. Ultimately, the outcome (the life of a single unremarkable person) was NOT worth the fight, but rather completely random and without logic.
but they did accomplish something, they won the battle at the bridge. Or they held the Germans off long enough for reinforcements to arrive, allowing them to keep control of the bridge. this is an accomplishment, and an important one according to the characters in the film.
Agreed.
I only watch this or other spilberg film for a dare game, and I hate him even more. I think he only cares about money and academy award
Jaws? ET? Raiders of the Lost Ark? You're missing out on some good films if you don't watch ones made by Spielberg.
Well private ryan starts with an USA flag and ends with it. Hanks safes a german prisoner, gets shot by a german prisoner. Idk but somehow private ryan truly is for me a patriotic picture. Yes, This movie shows how awful war is, that you sometimes need to fight to achieve freedom for others. But it's in my humble opinion not that far good if you just show in such an situation only a black and white, and the German prisoner is such an black and white portrait for me. Yes this movie shows really a lot of braveness that you need, the violence and all those things. But war is more than good vs evil. The allies consisted mostly out of france, uk, us: 4 million men died because Winston Churchill didn't took care of them. That's some kind of unknown genocide. France still had brutal colonies like UK, Churchill was a REAL RACIST who thought the white man had more rights. Those 2 country's are called heroes from once upon that time which they sometimes really have been. But what for an hero let 4 million people die. You see, this is my point. War is more than black white, some germans have been pure monsters, some just didn't really know the full effect of antisemitism and some were just afraid or duty recruited. They haven't been all monsters, neither germany, japan, usssr, france, usa, patizanian warriors on the balkan, netherlands, UK or anyone else. But that doesn't mean that every one has been a moralic, a monster or a true hero. Those people have been humans not stereotypes
uhm excuse me the allies consisted mostly of the later evil USSR who suffered losses greater than all of the others combined
@Tom Ffrench very good point
A well know Propaganda movie made in Hollywood .
SPR is not a propaganda film.
@@usul573of course it is
The film Saving Private Ryan is NOT an anti-war film. It is the best depiction of history I have ever scene. It tells the truth! It was a horrible, bloody war but sometimes they must be fought for liberty and peace. I always support the soldiers!
Did you watch my video? Cause in it I say the same thing!
You know nothing about history. The cinematic shit-stain that is Saving Private Ryan does NOT depict history at all! It is one of the least historically accurate motion pictures I've ever had the misfortune to witness. SPR most definitely does NOT tell the truth. As for liberty and peace, the end of WWII set the stage for Soviet annexation and domination of weaker nations, mass murder, torture, forced relocation, forced labor, political oppression, violation of human rights, and GENOCIDE of over 100 MILLION PEOPLE by the Soviets, Chinese Communists, Khmer Rouge, Vietnamese Communists, North Korean Communists, Cuban Communists, and don't forget Soviet-backed Idi Amin and Jean-Bedel Bokassa. They committed mass murder, too!
But, hey, at least we beat the Nazis. Yay. ;D
That movie is neither anti or pro war. It's a story that takes place during war.
What a Zionist take, my guy.
not sure what you mean by that
@@MoviesUnderTheSurface America has never had a moral obligation to intervene in any other group's business unless it threatens the US itself. This interventionist ideology has been supported by Zionists in WWII as well as almost every US military intervention since the 90s.
@@MAJ0R_TOM hey sorry, I didn't see your answer before. So you are you saying that I am claiming SPR is a Zionist film?
@breaking the 4th wall like I'm confused what his problem is. Nowhere in the video does he say "Murica good German Bad"...
the most subjectively american analysis/ interpretation i've ever seen of this movie ....and the matter of right and wrong in war
well it is an American film
@@MoviesUnderTheSurface I think he's implying that you are showing Jewish bias since you keep criticizing the Nazis.
Igor Gryb yeah and I guess that means that if he weren’t Jewish he wouldn’t criticize the nazis
@Tom Ffrench I'm pretty sure 99% of Europeans have zero respect for Nazis. But there's always that remaining 1%.
I think movie could use more self-awareness, including about the lack of representation
Nice way too twist the facts to your liking
what am I twisting?
This video infuriated me so much
I agree on the part with the war, but saying the american entitlement is a good thing? Bruh. All the time listening to you (and frankly any time I watch the movie) I think "wow. If only either of my grandfathers had the privileg to be taken out of the war like that or had the slight chance of this happening"
But no. They had to fight for their families. They had to fight to keep their home and country safe. Not to undermine americas role in the war (you did after all weaken the west front which. Awesome move guy. Appreciate it) but you have little to no idea what was happeneing in the east. And you have no idea what ww2 meant for those on who's soil it was fought. And then to say "fighting nazis is awesome"?
The characters in the movie don't fight nazis. They don't storm concentration camps of punch the SS. They fought soldiers (a point the movie also makes several times)
I guess the naivete and america centric worldview of this video is just really bothering me
Where do I say American entitlement is a good thing? I don't believe I say that anywhere, at all.
I also never say fighting Nazis is awesome. Nothing about war is awesome, a point I make when mentioning how war is shown in video games.